Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #84
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Wednesday, July 3 1996        Volume 01 : Number 084

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 23:11:56 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 212 (CnH)

Calvin N Hobbes has been selected to judge the following, and has 3 days
to accept or decline the appointment.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 212
  Subject:  Interpreting R 111
Initiator:  Malenkai
    Judge:  Calvin N Hobbes (selected Jul 2, 1996, 23:14h New York Time)

Statement:

A player who invokes R 111 does not necessarily quit the game; they merely
have the option of ceasing to play, or losing.

Malenkai's Reaoning:

Rule 111 is rather clear on the matter:

> A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than continue
> to play or incur a game penalty.

Certainly they can lose: They may "forfeit the game rather than
incur a game penalty". This means you forfeit your right to win (ie, lose),
in exchange for incurring the game penalty.
 
Certainly they can cease to play: They may "forfeit the game rather than
continue to play", the key phrase being "continue to play". Note that
forfeit still means to lose, but you are invoking your right to not
play, so the fact that you are losing doesn't really matter.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 96 23:27:59 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 956

Proposal 956 - Tue Jul 02 23:27:58 EDT 1996
Amending 355
pTang1001001sos  (Mark Nau)

1) amend R355, iff it exists, so that it reads, in whole:

"
There exists a protected acka-entity known as the Voting Gnome.
The Voting Gnome can never be owned, nor is he stored in the Treasury.
This takes precedence over any Rule that would attempt to confine this
poor woodland creature to the Treasury.  Instead, the Voting Gnome
lives in a small bungalow situated on the bank of the River Tongula
just where it enters the Not-So-Dark Forest.

The Voting Gnome can cast one vote on each Proposals.  This takes
precedence over any Rule that would deny the Voting Gnome the ability
to vote on Proposals.

At any time, the Player with the lowest positive score will be known 
as the Gnome Buddy.  The Gnome Buddy may dictate how the Voting Gnome
shall vote on each Proposal submitted while e is the Gnome Buddy.

If there is more than one person who is tied for the lowest positive 
score, then the next lowest positive score is used, and this continues
until the lowest single positive score is found. If all positive scores
are tied, then there is no Gnome Buddy until the scores change such that
this is no longer the case.

In the event that there is no Gnome Buddy, or if the Gnome Buddy fails
to specify how the Voting Gnome shall vote, the Voting Gnome will not
vote.
"

2) create a new rule, iff R355 does not exist, with the full text
given between the quotes above.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 23:42:01 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 213 (ThinMan)

ThinMan has been selected to judge the following, and has 3 days
to accept or decline the appointment.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 213
  Subject:  R 362's validity
Initiator:  Malenkai
    Judge:  ThinMan (selected Jul 2, 1996, 23:45h New York Time)

Statement:

R 362 is wholly void and without effect.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

R 362 (mutable) reads, in part:

> If any player does not vote or communicate publically with all of the
> Ackanomic players for a time period of one week, and this fact is
> pointed out to the Speaker by any player (other than the said player),
> then the Speaker must send a message to the player who has been absent.
> [...]

This rule applies to vacationing players (qv CFJ 198). Furthermore, this
rule requires that the Speaker send a message to vacationing players 
asking them if they want to remain in the game, if said vacationing 
players have not communicated or voted within a week, and a player 
requests that the Speaker do so.

Let the term Speaker mean Speaker or Acting Speaker, it matters not
for the purposes of discussion, it is the same individual.

In the "judgement" of the current Speaker, being asked to do the work
required by this rule (not the same as being asked by the player to 
*start* the work) is a "penalty worse than losing, in the Speaker's
judgement to incur it". The current Speaker has put forth rationale as
to why that is such, but that matters not for this argument. All that
matters is the Speaker's "judgement" that the quoted phrase above is true.
Thus R 362 is forcing a "penalty worse than losing, in the Speaker's
judgement to incur it", upon the Speaker.

I now quote from R 111 (Immutable), in part:

> No penalty worse than losing, in the judgement of the player to incur
> it, may be imposed.

Thus R 362 imposes a penalty worse than losing, in the Judgement of the
Speaker to incur it, and R 111 prohibits such imposition.

This is an Immutable/Mutable inconsistency. I quote from R 108, in part:

> Mutable rules that are inconsistent in some way with some immutable
> rule (except by proposing to transmute it) are wholly void and
> without effect.

Thus R 362 is "wholly void and without effect". A verdict of TRUE is 
necessary.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 23:46:16 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 214 (De'ghew)

De'ghew has been selected to judge the following, and has 3 days
to accept or decline the appointment.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 214
  Subject:  ThinMan's winning
Initiator:  /dev/joe
    Judge:  De'ghew (selected Jul 2, 1996, 23:49h New York Time)

Statement:

When ThinMan set n to 6, he won the game.

/dev/joe's Comments:

I don't care either way, but it's rather important to know.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 00:10:22 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 105 (Techno)

Techno has been selected to judge the following, and has 3 days
to accept or decline the appointment. Would the Financier please note
Malenkai's A$20 Court Fee.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Criminal Judgement 105
  Subject:  Cruel and Unusual Penalites
Initiator:  Malenkai
    Judge:  Techno (selected Jul 3, 1996, 00:11h New York Time)

Statement:

Player pTang1001001sos has violated R 101.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

pTang1001001sos has invoked R 362, forcing Speaker/Acting Speaker
Malenkai to initiate a process of removing certain players from the
game. That action, in Malenkai's "judgement" is a "penalty worse than
losing, in the Malenkai's judgement to incur it"

Malenkai has put forth rationale as to why that is such, but that matters
not for this argument. All that matters is Malenkai's "judgement" that the 
quoted phrase above is true, and the fact, by pTang1001001sos invoking
this rule, is imposing this penalty.

I now quote from R 111 (Immutable), in part:

> No penalty worse than losing, in the judgement of the player to incur
> it, may be imposed.

pTang1001001sos is imposing such a penalty on Malenkai, simply by invoking
R 362. Thus pTang1001001sos is violating R 111 (quoted above), and thus
is violating R 101. A verdict of TRUE is necessary.

Penalty:

As pTang1001001sos wishes to remove 5 players, including 2 former 
Speakers, and the founder of the game, an a player honored, by rule,
the removal of one player seems to pale in comparison.

I, however, call for a penalty of EXPULSION of pTang1001001sos anyway.

[Note that the judge may adjust the penalty. Note that he may also rejoin,
and probably be in better shape, due to some loopholes. That is not the
point.]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 96 0:34:37 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 105 (Techno)

] As pTang1001001sos wishes to remove 5 players, including 2 former 
] Speakers, and the founder of the game, an a player honored, by rule,
] the removal of one player seems to pale in comparison.

] I, however, call for a penalty of EXPULSION of pTang1001001sos anyway.

] Note that the judge may adjust the penalty. Note that he may also rejoin,
] and probably be in better shape, due to some loopholes. That is not the
] point.]

This has gotten way out of hand.  If someone is EXPELLED from the game
for doing what the rules allow for you to do, I will quit immediately.

The side arguement is if we should declare the players on vacation dead
players and have them removed from the game.  This is how I view the whole
situation.  Several of the players that are on vacation are probably at
home for the summer.  They have no internet access, and therefore cannot
play nomic.  They all want to play when they return in the fall.  So
shall we declare them dead players?  Or shall we let them remain on
vacation until they decide to return?  The only problem with keeping
them on vacation is that they hold Senate seats that could be filled by other
players.  We currently have Acting Senators that do thier jobs.

Even if the players are declared dead, they still can rejoin when they
return.  I am sure that no stigma would be attached to them under these
curcumstances.

I do disagree with the Speaker in his attempt to "sit on the job" stance.
He should do his job.  He has made reference to "penalty worse than losing
the game".  Doing your job is not a penalty.  I don't see how it could
be interpreted as a penalty.

Wayne

------------------------------

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #84
******************************